HIMANK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed under Sec. 528 of BNSS 2023 seeking quashing of FIR No. 339 dtd. 24/10/2024, under Sec. 376(2)(n) IPC, registered at Police Station Sector-56, District Gurugram (Annexure P-1) and all other consequential proceedings arising therefrom.

(2.) The brief factual matrix relevant and essential for disposal of the present petition, is that a complaint No. 3383 dtd. 16/9/2024 moved by the complainant-respondent was received at Police Station Dwarka, New Delhi, wherein it was alleged that in January 2021, the complainant met the petitioner and they became good friends. She accepted the marriage proposal of the petitioner, and she thus engaged in physical relationship with him. On 29/10/2023, the petitioner along with his mother and two sisters came at her residence for finalizing their marriage, and told them to make necessary arrangements for the marriage in January 2024. It is alleged that the petitioner told her to book a five star venue for roka ceremony, and also that he demanded jewellery for himself and his family memebrs. He further told her that minimum Rs.50.00 lacs should be spent on the marriage. When the complainant apprised the petitioner about their financial condition, he proposed the postponement of the marriage to November 2024 for the reason that his maternal aunt had passed away in November 2023. After the roka ceremony, in the first week of August 2024, the petitioner after requesting the parents of the complainant, took her to Ayodhya, and yet again made physical relations with her. However shortly after, the petitioner told her that because the gifts given in the roka ceremony were not expensive enough, therefore his family was quarreling with him. It was also alleged therein that a demand of an XUV-700 car was also raised by the petitioner. Thereafter on 1/9/2024, the petitioner informed her that his family was against their union, and he called off the marriage. On the basis of the above said complaint, a ZERO FIR was registered at Police Station Dwarka, Delhi. However, since the alleged occurrence pertained to District Gurugram, therefore, the said complaint was forwarded to District Gurugram, whereafter the present FIR was registered.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case by the complainant to wreck vengeance, as her marriage with the petitioner which was scheduled for November 2024, was called off. It is submitted that the petitioner is a B-Tech Graduate, and was working as a Senior Manager at Pristyn Care Company, Gurugram in November 2020. The complainant joined the said company in January 2021 as a Business Development Manager and she was reporting directly to the petitioner. After a few months, the parties developed a liking for each other, and started engaging in physical relations. It is highlighted by the learned senior counsel that at no point in time, any false assurance was given by the petitioner to the complainant for this purpose. Everything happened with the mutual consent of both the parties. Further, the explicit whatsapp chats (Annexure P-11) clearly show that it was the complainant who insisted upon the physical relations, and by no stretch of imagination can it be presumed from a perusal of the whatsapp chats that there was any kind of coercion or pressure upon the complainant.